Civil Liberties Test

When freedoms and protections collide, protection always finds away to prevail. To support my opinion I will start off by using the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. In this case a 14 year old girl was taken to her principal’s office because a teacher had a reasonable suspicion that she was smoking in the bathroom. When she got to the office the principal went through her purse and discovered marijuana along with drug paraphernalia. In this situation, she argued that the principal violated the 4th amendment which states; the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The problem with this amendment is that there are many loop holes in it, for example when you are in school, you are limited to what your rights are and in loco parentis. And with this in loco parentis took over her rights and which allowed the principal to search through her purse. With loco parentis the officials of any school take the role of the parent for the duration of the school day. Ask any parent, and they will most likely say that protecting their children is more important than their freedoms. Another case that helps support my opinion is Dennis v. United States, in which eleven Communist leaders were arrested and charged with the plan to overthrow the government. Their argument was that they were protected by the 1st amendment, and they took that all the way to Supreme Court, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government. Even though freedom of speech gives you the privilege to say what you feel, but when that speech crosses the line of saying what you feel and what puts a subject in danger is where the freedom of speech is voided. Another case is Mirand v. Arizona. In this case Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping a little girl, but when arrested he was not told his rights. Upon not being told his rights, he confessed and was charged with rape and kidnap. But then he figured out that he was not given any rights to what he can and cannot do while being arrersted. In Miranda's case, the freedom of speech hurt him instead of helped him, and with the rights given to the detainee, he cannot violate the fifth amendment, which is; No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury... With the protection of the fifth amendment he was not able to self-incriminate himself unless he was given the opportunity of a council , and was given his rights. With the case of California v. Greenwood, there was a tip that Greenwood was selling illegal narcotics out of his house, so the police went through his garbage cans and found a mass amount of paraphernalia. Greenwood then argued that he was protected by the fourth amendment and said it was an illegal search, but the Court ruled against him for the reason that, his garbage is open to anyone to look through. And with that he is putting people and animals in harms way with chemicals in his garbage. By him putting American citizens in danger, made protection over-ride his freedom to throw anything away in his garbage. When freedoms and protections collide, the govenrment seems to care more about our protection than our freedom.

Test post

This is my test post.